Can we all agree the republic was much more interesting than the empire...

Can we all agree the republic was much more interesting than the empire? A senate allows for many more interesting historical beats than a a sovereign

>Not Christian
Into the lake of fire it goes!

they can hardly be blamed for being born before jesus.

Both were interesting. Rome didn't suddenly become boring because it switched political leaders.

This is bullshit, Rome was never an Empire in the contemporary sense of the word of anyway, folks from this time called the time before Augustus "the old republic".

And there was a senate in this Empire, fun fact: the "emperor" is called "princeps" which mean "first senator".

Even if Trajan tended to make Rome an absolute and hereditary monarchy at the end of the first century, power still was somewhat disseminated and the leader systematically assassinated when not complying with other branch of the regime (Senat, military, equites, praetorian, you name it).

But on the flip side, Rome was effectively an empire by the end of the first punic war holding property in Sicily, Massilia, and Iberia.

...

It is undeniable that the heart of the Carthaginian and Roman empire was in Spain.When the Iberian soldiers allied with the Romans the second punic war was over as the bulk of Carthage's army were brave Iberian soldiers and Rome needed real men and not sissy Italians to end the comflict.That is why the most important theatre of the Punic wars was Spain.It took the Romans 200 years to annex Spain as they had fewer Iberian troops than the Iberian tribes.It took time to gather another Iberian army bigger than the ones of the tribes to defeat the brave and manly Spaniards.This Iberian soldiers became the elite in Rome and the most important Romans were mostly Iberians genetically.This is scientific. Republic vs empire is a pointless discussion. Good rulers were Iberian regardless of the system and bad rulers were sissy Italians

This is a myth perpetuated by people with a cursory knowledge of basic stuff like Polybius and who have played Rome Total War, watched Rome etc. The later Empire particularly is actually far more interesting.

No. A Mediterranean spanning empire seems far more interesting imo.

This

Late Antiquity >>>>

>republic was much more interesting than the empire
Actually the most interesting period of the Roman history is 133-30 BC. It's basically a real life illustration of "absolute power corrupts absolutely" maxim, and it's mindblowing how they managed to expand the empire while facing constant civil wars, rebellions and general decline of the old republican ethos.

>Can we all agree the republic was much more interesting than the empire?
I don't know user. I find them both equally interesting, but with very different appeals.

what? jesus was born after the republic

>corruption and war is interesting.
The most boring of historical elements.

It's the only historical elements the sources tell us about, so it's not like we have any choice here.

The Apicius talks about a great deal more than war.

>Apicius is a collection of Roman cookery recipes
Yeah, well, no.

why not? pussy

And thus the Republic was garbage. Everything Roman was shit until Constantine

>saying gods creation was garbage before jesus

>Dacia
>after 14 AD
What the fuck is this shit?

>implying sinners aren't garbage

King James Bible
If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

>implying we aren't all sinners

Agreed.

I agree, but the fall of the republic makes a great template for fictional literature.